The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility • Hacker News Board

Re: The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

#11

Post by kia » Wed, Oct 20, 2010, 2:48 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #5

I don't want to start an environmental flame war, but... Isn't the disposal of inert materials in landfills one of the lease important environmental problems? Yes, if you're cutting down rain forests to make your cups, infusing them with CFCs, or using terrawatts of fossil-fuel-based power, then there are issues to discuss. But if you're just putting paper in a big pile somewhere, there's basically no issue. For all…

Landfill space is not unlimited. I understand that you are talking about US, but some countries (Japan) have huge problems with space.

The less you have the more you should think about doing things right.

Re: The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

#12

Post by ohyes » Wed, Oct 20, 2010, 2:48 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #5

I don't want to start an environmental flame war, but... Isn't the disposal of inert materials in landfills one of the lease important environmental problems? Yes, if you're cutting down rain forests to make your cups, infusing them with CFCs, or using terrawatts of fossil-fuel-based power, then there are issues to discuss. But if you're just putting paper in a big pile somewhere, there's basically no issue. For all…

You are coming at it from the wrong angle. The disposal of inert materials in a landfill is trivial. The problem is that we are disposing of otherwise useful materials, in a landfill. If I'm putting paper in a big pile of paper, and not using it for anything, I'm wasting resources, I could use that big pile of paper for something else.

Landfills can also be a problem, as they can have negative effects on things like local water quality. If we are using landfill space when we don't need to use it (things that are inert and recyclable), it is a waste of landfill space, which we should try to minimize and use for things that actually need to be disposed of safely.

Re: The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

#13

Post by ars » Wed, Oct 20, 2010, 2:56 PM UTC

robryan wrote: post #8

jessriedel wrote: post #5

I don't want to start an environmental flame war, but... Isn't the disposal of inert materials in landfills one of the lease important environmental problems? Yes, if you're cutting down rain forests to make your cups, infusing them with CFCs, or using terrawatts of fossil-fuel-based power, then there are issues to discuss. But if you're just putting paper in a big pile somewhere, there's basically no issue. For all…

Well, if we were recycling all our current paper based waste then less rain forests would have to be cut down to keep up with demand. Have been thinking about advertising catalogues you get in the mail and phone books as well today, both products that use a lot of paper for marginal benefit these days.

Not a single sheet of paper is made from rain forest trees.

In fact almost nothing is made from rain forest trees. They are usually cut down to use the land, not for the trees.

Re: The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

#14

Post by ars » Wed, Oct 20, 2010, 2:57 PM UTC

ohyes wrote: post #12

jessriedel wrote: post #5

I don't want to start an environmental flame war, but... Isn't the disposal of inert materials in landfills one of the lease important environmental problems? Yes, if you're cutting down rain forests to make your cups, infusing them with CFCs, or using terrawatts of fossil-fuel-based power, then there are issues to discuss. But if you're just putting paper in a big pile somewhere, there's basically no issue. For all…

You are coming at it from the wrong angle. The disposal of inert materials in a landfill is trivial. The problem is that we are disposing of otherwise useful materials, in a landfill. If I'm putting paper in a big pile of paper, and not using it for anything, I'm wasting resources, I could use that big pile of paper for something else. Landfills can also be a problem, as they can have negative effects on things like…

Paper uses more resources to recycle (especially water) than it uses to make it fresh. It's a feel good thing that does more harm than good.

Putting paper in the ground is excellent from a CO2 sequestering point of view as well.

Re: The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

#15

Post by jessriedel » Wed, Oct 20, 2010, 2:59 PM UTC

robryan wrote: post #8

jessriedel wrote: post #5

I don't want to start an environmental flame war, but... Isn't the disposal of inert materials in landfills one of the lease important environmental problems? Yes, if you're cutting down rain forests to make your cups, infusing them with CFCs, or using terrawatts of fossil-fuel-based power, then there are issues to discuss. But if you're just putting paper in a big pile somewhere, there's basically no issue. For all…

Well, if we were recycling all our current paper based waste then less rain forests would have to be cut down to keep up with demand. Have been thinking about advertising catalogues you get in the mail and phone books as well today, both products that use a lot of paper for marginal benefit these days.

> Well, if we were recycling all our current paper based waste then less rain forests would have to be cut down to keep up with demand.

Rain forests are cut down to clear land for farming in developing countries, not for wood.

Re: The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

#16

Post by ars » Wed, Oct 20, 2010, 3:00 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #5

I don't want to start an environmental flame war, but... Isn't the disposal of inert materials in landfills one of the lease important environmental problems? Yes, if you're cutting down rain forests to make your cups, infusing them with CFCs, or using terrawatts of fossil-fuel-based power, then there are issues to discuss. But if you're just putting paper in a big pile somewhere, there's basically no issue. For all…

You are completely correct. The only aspect you are not considering is the "feel good" greenwashing.

There are far far far more important goals than recycling or composting paper.

Re: The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

#17

Post by danteembermage » Wed, Oct 20, 2010, 3:03 PM UTC

ohyes wrote: post #7

I wonder why they don't come up with a cheap, washable cup that the customers 'borrow' for the duration of drinking coffee. You buy a coffee for 3 bucks, you get the cup for a dollar, and you get a dollar back when you return the cup. They wash the cup and use it again. It would be like getting it 'for here', but you give some collateral against the price of the cup, and can leave. There are enough Starbucks within t…

I wonder if health liability doesn't drive this, at least partially. Also, do Starbucks have dish washing facilities currently? That adds a lot of space to the footprint of their small stores (It looks to me as though Starbucks can currently just about be run out of a hallway). I'm not trying to be critical of the approach, I think it's great, it just seems like there might be some nontrivial costs to implementing it.

Re: The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

#18

Post by TorKlingberg » Wed, Oct 20, 2010, 3:07 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #16

jessriedel wrote: post #5

I don't want to start an environmental flame war, but... Isn't the disposal of inert materials in landfills one of the lease important environmental problems? Yes, if you're cutting down rain forests to make your cups, infusing them with CFCs, or using terrawatts of fossil-fuel-based power, then there are issues to discuss. But if you're just putting paper in a big pile somewhere, there's basically no issue. For all…

You are completely correct. The only aspect you are not considering is the "feel good" greenwashing. There are far far far more important goals than recycling or composting paper.

Source please.

Re: The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

#19

Post by ohyes » Wed, Oct 20, 2010, 3:11 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #14

ohyes wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are coming at it from the wrong angle. The disposal of inert materials in a landfill is trivial. The problem is that we are disposing of otherwise useful materials, in a landfill. If I'm putting paper in a big pile of paper, and not using it for anything, I'm wasting resources, I could use that big pile of paper for something else. Landfills can also be a problem, as they can have negative effects on things like…

Paper uses more resources to recycle (especially water) than it uses to make it fresh. It's a feel good thing that does more harm than good. Putting paper in the ground is excellent from a CO2 sequestering point of view as well.

A quick Google search makes me think your first point is not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycled_paper#Rationale_for_re...

Granted, it is Wikipedia, and I'd welcome data to back up your point, but other sources seem to say similar things. Barring a great internet hippie recycling conspiracy, I'd say you are wrong.

The article seems to be focused on the idea of composting the cups anyway.

Re: The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

#20

Post by jessriedel » Wed, Oct 20, 2010, 3:15 PM UTC

ohyes wrote: post #12

jessriedel wrote: post #5

I don't want to start an environmental flame war, but... Isn't the disposal of inert materials in landfills one of the lease important environmental problems? Yes, if you're cutting down rain forests to make your cups, infusing them with CFCs, or using terrawatts of fossil-fuel-based power, then there are issues to discuss. But if you're just putting paper in a big pile somewhere, there's basically no issue. For all…

You are coming at it from the wrong angle. The disposal of inert materials in a landfill is trivial. The problem is that we are disposing of otherwise useful materials, in a landfill. If I'm putting paper in a big pile of paper, and not using it for anything, I'm wasting resources, I could use that big pile of paper for something else. Landfills can also be a problem, as they can have negative effects on things like…

> The problem is that we are disposing of otherwise useful materials, in a landfill. If I'm putting paper in a big pile of paper, and not using it for anything, I'm wasting resources, I could use that big pile of paper for something else.

I believe this thinking is very flawed if it's used to justify extra-market laws or consumer boycotts. (If it's not being so used, then you're basically just saying "In accordance with market principles, Starbucks is trying to increase share-holder value by finding value in it's waste products. I approve.").

How do you decide if something is "wasted" other than with economic cost-benefit analysis? If there was an economical way to use it, we would (or will, once we have the technology). I'm all for entrepreneurs finding new ways to utilize waste products. And, in fact, such entrepreneurs enjoy huge advantages in the market place because many people have not-quite-rational feelings about "waste".

In other words: where is the market failure which is significant compared to the failures associated with carbon emissions, CFCs, etc.?